The original LDF submission is posted here: http://consult.westberks.gov.uk/portal/pla...d=1266958890400 . The changes in the wording of certain bullet points on the LDF will alter the text from Phased delivery of up to 1,450 homes, of which at least 35% will be affordable to "phased delivery of up to 1,500 homes" (see page 8 of attached document). What is to stop the racecourse developer from diluting the percentage of affordable homes within the development after the removal of this text?
It is all very well saying that proposing to dilute the percentage of affordable homes and actually being given permission to do so are completely different things. At the same time, with any alterations to planning policy, there will always be temptation in the future of incentives to award change in consent etc. A few million extra in s106 payments, and suddenly a reduction in affordable housing as part of this development may not appear to be so bad to the councillor taking the decision.
Because the consultation is hidden away and has not been publicised, very few people will know about it. The way the consultation is being carried out, respondents are only allowed to make submissions regarding the legality and soundness of the changes to the text in this document therefore making it almost impossible to stop these alterations. To me, it appears that the 35% inclusion of affordable housing was a carrot to get the development included in the housing strategy, and the plan now is to remove the commitment in the LDF to allow the developer to potentially reduce the percentage of the affordable housing allocation.
I do appreciate you taking time out of your day to speak to me this morning, but as leader of the council I would expect you to know about this consultation at the very least. As leader of the council, it is you who should be directing the officers as to housing policy in the area, not the other way around. If nothing is done to stop this, it will be yet another example of unelected officers railroading their own policy changes through knowing that they are unaccountable to anyone. Maybe this is one of the reasons why the public are becoming increasingly frustrated at the level of poorly though out development in West Berkshire.
I look forward to hearing back from you later today, as I am sure you will appreciate that timing is of the essence with regards to the consultation.
The affordable home element of Parkway was removed in return for a £100k payment - I suspect you are over estimating the S106 payout from the Racecourse.
Other changes to the LDF seem to be reflecting changes to government policy (notably the reduction/removal of housing density requirements). I wonder if the affordable housing bit is also government influenced.
Labour set targets to pressurise local planners into allowing more building, the Tories seem to want even more building, but haven't quite worked out how to go about it yet. Heard an item on R4 a few days back - a chap from a group called 250 New Towns (or similar). He was campaigning for the virtual removal of any powers that enable local authorities to prevent building anywhere - with the aim of building 500,000 new homes every year. A government minister was included and seemed quite sympathetic ...
OK, so I DID recieve a reply (better not post it), but I will summarise for you.
* Core Strategy is due to be examined by an Independent Inspector in a public forum at Shaw House in November, he says the changes will be debated and responses submitted will be considered (although the councils website suggests that only comments regarding "legality" and "soundness" of these changes will be considered).
* Apparently the council have awarded planning permission for 1,500 units, only 30% of which will be affordable so this is why the 35% quota is being removed (as I actually understand it, the 35% applies to the original proposal of 1,400 and when it was increased, the affordable quota became diluted). As a result, West Berks have suggested to the inspector that the change to the LDF is made to reflect the consent given when the increase in units was permitted.
* He goes on to say that any developer can request to change consent on viability, but this doesn't have to be granted. HOWEVER, if the 35% text in the LDF remained, the developer in this case would have to honour it as long as that text was there. Once the text is gone, they could dilute it as much as they want if they did a deal with the council. isn't the problem in West Berkshire a LACK OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING??? Why on earth have they awarded consent with 30% affordable quota when their own LDF demands a 35% quota on this site???
* He says that following the adoption of the Core Strategy and assuming that Policy CS3 is amended as per the proposed changes then any new application for development would have to comply with the adopted policy. Well, that's easy to say once you remove the minimum quota of affordable housing!!!
If I wish to comment further, I can contact Mr Lyttle apparently... I think I'll just try and campaign against this change myself. I would encourage everyone who feels strongly about affordable housing to submit a response to this consultation, even if they fiddle it so that the comments cannot contribute to the overall decision, at least the inspector will see that there is strong local feeling.
35% of 1450 units in the original LDF: 507.5 30% of 1500 units that have been given consent would be: 450 units (a reduction of 57.5, so still worse off) Planning consent actually requires 439 units on the Racecourse site, which is LESS than 30%!!! That is why they can't simply change the text calling for a minimum of 30% affordable housing within the development. Somebody at West Berks wasn't using a calculator!!!
I am still a bit confused about what is an 'affordable house'. Does the developer build 100 houses to a high standard and 35 to a lower standard. i.e. they are cheaper to buy. Just define for me affordable housing.
I understand, I think, what social housing is, that's what we used to call Council Houses isn't it, administered by sovereign housing.
I am still a bit confused about what is an 'affordable house'. Does the developer build 100 houses to a high standard and 35 to a lower standard. i.e. they are cheaper to buy. Just define for me affordable housing.
I understand, I think, what social housing is, that's what we used to call Council Houses isn't it, administered by sovereign housing.
Social and affordable are similar. They will be built with modest size rooms, garden space, etc. They would be priced at no-more than what a typical first time buyer would be looking to pay.
So, why should the developer care then. The assumption is that for say every two normal dwellings he can build, in the same space, he could perhaps fit three affordable homes that he can knock out in half the time and at a lower specification. He can make his profit, therefore what's the big deal regarding these cheapo houses or, are the normal price houses financing them. If that is true, I can understand why developers are keen to dob a few quid to WBC to get their quota down. To be honest, I see no reason why a developer should be forced to build low cost houses within their development anyway. If the government want them then let the government build them. And, who markets these houses, are they sold through the normal channels or what.
It depends if you think towns like Newbury don't want to see police, nurses, carers, etc, move out of town to seek cheaper equivalent housing. If you leave development to the developers; what do you think Newbury would look like?
35% of 1450 units in the original LDF: 507.5 30% of 1500 units that have been given consent would be: 450 units (a reduction of 57.5, so still worse off) Planning consent actually requires 439 units on the Racecourse site, which is LESS than 30%!!! That is why they can't simply change the text calling for a minimum of 30% affordable housing within the development. Somebody at West Berks wasn't using a calculator!!!
To be fair and judging by their normal budgetting standards this is pretty close!!
So, why should the developer care then. The assumption is that for say every two normal dwellings he can build, in the same space, he could perhaps fit three affordable homes that he can knock out in half the time and at a lower specification. He can make his profit, therefore what's the big deal regarding these cheapo houses or, are the normal price houses financing them. If that is true, I can understand why developers are keen to dob a few quid to WBC to get their quota down. To be honest, I see no reason why a developer should be forced to build low cost houses within their development anyway. If the government want them then let the government build them. And, who markets these houses, are they sold through the normal channels or what.
If you have a lot of 'affordable' housing next door to your 6 bed 4 bath 'executive' homes it makes the latter harder to sell & for less money.
If you have a lot of 'affordable' housing next door to your 6 bed 4 bath 'executive' homes it makes the latter harder to sell & for less money.
That's why provision has to be carefully planned. It's not just key workers it benefits, but the plan is to retain younger generations who work and pay taxes from moving away. Without it, we just have big expensive houses and without the young generation to pay taxes, how will we pay for the ageing population here? The deficit is bad enough now, think about ten years from now. The Tory's and the Lib Dems aren't thinking ahead.
If you have a lot of 'affordable' housing next door to your 6 bed 4 bath 'executive' homes it makes the latter harder to sell & for less money.
Which isn't so bad if you are buying! I would have thought it wouldn't make much difference in this case as the affordable housing element is already there, and one has the choice from the beginning whether it is an issue or not.
That's why provision has to be carefully planned. It's not just key workers it benefits, but the plan is to retain younger generations who work and pay taxes from moving away. Without it, we just have big expensive houses and without the young generation to pay taxes, how will we pay for the ageing population here? The deficit is bad enough now, think about ten years from now. The Tory's and the Lib Dems aren't thinking ahead.
Do only the young pay taxes then? Do only older people buy expensive houses?
Most likely the social housing will be taken by those on benefits. Who pay little tax.
Logged
Male
